Case Number(s): 04-C-12553
In the Matter of: Mark E. Montpas, Bar # 93365, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Michael J. Glass, Bar # 102700,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted October 31, 1980.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 11 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: 2006, 2007 and 2008. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
IN THE MATTER OF: Mark E. Montpas, State Bar No. 93365
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-C-12553
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Respondent Mark E. Montpas ("Respondent") admits the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violation of the Business and Professions Code.
Case No. 04-C-12553
1. On or about December 15, 2004, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BA261045, Respondent pied nolo contendere and was convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 484(a) (Theft of Property), one count, a misdemeanor which involves moral turpitude.
2. In the underlying matter, on or about September 13, 2000, Respondent was appointed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as the defense Attorney for his client, Defendant Michael Schwartz, in the matter of The People of the State of California vs. Michael Schwartz, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. NA045563. On or about June 13, 2001, Respondent submitted a declaration regarding attorney fees, under penalty of perjury, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, stating that Respondent had interviewed his client, Michael Schwartz, on several occasions at County Facilities. Respondent was unable to substantiate those interviews. After Respondent submitted the declaration regarding attorney fees to the County of Los Angeles, on or about June 13, 2001, the County of Los Angeles paid Respondent Attorneys Fees of $1,920 for the alleged several visits with client Michael Schwartz.
3. On or about December 15, 2004, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BA261045, Respondent was sentenced to one (1) year summary probation with conditions, including, the payment of a $100 fine, payment of $1,970 in restitution to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, payment of a $200 fine and penalty assessment, the completion of 25 hours of community service, and the voluntary abstention from the practice of law from December 15, 2004, through June 1, 2005. As of June 1, 2005, Respondent had paid the $100 fine, paid $1,970 in Restitution to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, paid the $200 fine and penalty assessment, completed the 25 hours of community service, and completed the voluntary abstention from the practice of law from December 15, 2004, through June 1, 2005.
4. On or about March 17, 2005, in State Bar Court Case No. 04-C-12553, the Review Department of the State Bar Court issued its order declining the imposition of an interim suspension as to Respondent based on good cause, including Respondent’s agreed abstention from the practice of law between December 15, 2004, and June 1, 2005, incident to Respondent’s conviction.
Conclusions of Law
By being convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 484(a) (Theft of Property), a misdemeanor, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to on page one, paragraph A.(7) was July 21, 2005.
COST OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of July 21, 2005, the estimated prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $1,636.00. Respondent acknowledges that this figure is an estimate only and it does not include State Bar costs which will be included in any final cost assessment. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
The parties stipulate that the costs are to be paid in three equal amounts, one third being added to and becoming a part of the membership fees for each of the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Standard 3.2 provides that Final conviction of a member of a crime which involves moral turpitude, either inherently or in the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission shall result in disbarment. Only if the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate, shall disbarment not be imposed. In those latter cases, the discipline shall not be less than a two-year actual suspension, prospective to any interim suspension imposed, irrespective of mitigating circumstances."
However, the courts have deviated from the standards in appropriate cases. In Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 103, the Attorney pied guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 15 U.S.C. sections 78n(e), 78FF, and 17 C.F.R. section 240.14e-3 in that he made an illegal purchase or sale of securities subject to an undisclosed tender offer. The attorney paid a fine with no period of incarceration and disgorged his profits of $57,000. The court imposed discipline consisting of a 5 year stayed suspension, 5 years probation, including a 1 year actual suspension. In mitigation, the court found that the Attorney had no prior discipline since his admission to the Bar in 1973, was remorseful and recognized his wrongful conduct, had cooperated with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the State Bar during their investigations, a considerable period of time has passed since his misconduct in 1982, and a significant number of character witnesses had testified to the Attorney’s honesty and integrity.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Under Standard 1.2(b)(iii) Respondent’s misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct, as Respondent was appointed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court as the Attorney for Defendant Michael Schwartz in a criminal matter, submitted a false declaration to the County of Los Angeles for Attorneys Fees in the amount of $1,920, and was paid the sum of $1,920 in Attorney’s Fees from the County of Los Angeles based on the false declaration.
Under Standard 1.2(b)(iv), Respondent’s misconduct significantly harmed a client, the public or the administration of justice because Respondent was appointed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court as the Attorney for Defendant Michael Schwartz in a criminal matter, submitted a false declaration to the County of Los Angeles for Attorneys Fees in the amount of $1,920, and was paid the sum of $1,920 in Attorney’s Fees from the County of Los Angeles based on the false declaration.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Under Standard 1.2(e)(i), Respondent has no prior record of discipline since his admission to the State Bar of California on October 31, 1980 (i.e. no prior discipline over 24 years of practice).
Under Standard 1.2(e)(v), Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation to the victims of his misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. In this regard, on December 15, 2004, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges against him. Further, on or about January 11, 2005, Respondent sent correspondence to the State Bar in which Respondent voluntarily informed the State Bar of his December 15, 2004 conviction.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
On December 15, 2004, Respondent was sentenced to one year summary probation with regard to his conviction. As of June 1, 2005, as part of the one year summary probation, Respondent has paid the $100 fine, paid $1,970 in Restitution to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, paid the $200 fine and penalty assessment, completed the 25 hours of community service, and completed the voluntary abstention from the practice of law from December 15, 2004, through June 1, 2005.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 04-C-12553
In the Matter of: Mark E. Montpas
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Mark E. Montpas
Date: August 19, 2005
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Michael J. Glass
Date: August 23, 2005
Case Number(s): 04-C-12553
In the Matter of: Mark E. Montpas
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 953(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Robert Talcott
Date: August 29, 2005
[Rule 62(b); Rules Proc. ; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on August 29, 2005, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
MARK E MONTPAS
605 S PACIFIC AVE #201
San Pedro, CA 90731
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
MICHAEL GLASS, ESQ., Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on August 29, 2005.
Signed by:
Rose M. Luthi
Case Administrator
State Bar Court